Stokes v. Love et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR NO CONTACT ORDER 34 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 7/20/15. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
LULLOWEN TERRELL STOKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CECELIA LOVE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
2:14-cv-02307-JDT/dkv
Jury Demanded

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
PETITION FOR NO CONTACT ORDER
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Lullowen Terrell Stokes’ Petition for No
Contact Order [DE #34]. Upon the Petition and Defendant Cecelia Love’s (“Sgt.
Love”) Response in Opposition [DE #35], the Court finds that the Petition is not well
taken. The Petition is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
Plaintiff, a pro se inmate, asks the Court to prohibit Sgt. Love from having
any contact with him, a request which is in the nature of a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief. See, Tunstall v. Knowles, 2010 WL 7785605 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6,
2010).

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be

granted only if the movant carries his or her burden of proving that the
circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Gov’t., 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Whether to deny or grant preliminary
injunctive relief turns on:

(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without
the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause
substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would
be served by issuance of the injunction.
Tumblebus v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 760 (6th Cir. 2005); see generally, Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65(a).
In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the
merits of his Petition or that he will suffer irreparable injury without injunctive
relief. According to Plaintiff, he had no cause to petition the Court until recently,
“when the Adult Offenders Center, inmates and employees alike, were moved from
961 Sycamore View, Memphis, TN to 1045 Mullins Station Road in Memphis,
Tennessee.” This move, Plaintiff asserts, “enhanc[es] the chances of [him] and [Sgt.
Love] meeting … [a]nd open[s] opportunities for [Sgt. Love] to retaliate and/or cause
[him] further bodily harm.”
Plaintiff believes this move of inmates and employees increases the
possibility he and Sgt. Love might be in the same place at the same time, and, this
possibility might, by chance, provide Sgt. Love an opportunity to retaliate against
him or injure him. However, Plaintiff asserts no basis to anticipate Sgt. Love will
act in such a way; instead, he just thinks she might. Thus, Plaintiff fails to provide
any grounds for his request for extraordinary relief.
Further, the Court declines to involve itself in the day-to-day operations of
the Shelby County Division of Corrections by modifying the job assignments of one
of its employees, Sgt. Love. Absent a constitutional issue, “[t]he federal courts will
2

not intrude themselves in the administration of” local penal institutions.

E.g.,

Whitaker v. McCullough, 513 F. Supp. 428 (E.D. Tenn. 1980) (state jail); see
generally, Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228-29 (1976).
Absent any showing that he is entitled to extraordinary preliminary
injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s Petition is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 The issuance of the requested injunction also could substantially harm the Shelby County Division
of Corrections by interfering in its day-to-day operations. Moreover, it is in the public interest for
local penal institutions to govern themselves in the absence of constitutional issues. For these
reasons as well, Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief and his Petition is DENIED.

3